Attempting a tyranny of the minority on fluoridation

Tom O’Conner, president of Grey Power, describes community water fluoridation (CWF) as the “Tyranny of the Majority” (see “Fluoridation of water a trampling of our right,” Timaru Courier, May 26th).

Well, it is nice to see an anti-fluoridation piece which does not resort to scientific misrepresentations and distortions.* These fallacious “scientific” arguments a really just a proxy for the underlying political or values beliefs of the person advancing them. It would be more honest if we discussed these instead of wasting time on the scientific arguments. So, thank you,Tom.

But what about this “tyranny of the majority” argument? Most anti-fluoride campaigners will probably support it. While we might have an idea of what it means here is a more specific definition offered by Wikipedia:

“The phrase “tyranny of the majority” (or “tyranny of the masses“) is used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule. It involves a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of a tyrant or despot. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious, political, or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.”

Freedom of choice

So I think O’Conner has let his emotions get out of hand here. Sure, CWF usually results from a majority decision, but there is no deliberate penalising of any minority group. In fact, “fluoride-free” community taps are often provided by councils to make sure the minority freedom of choice is maintained. Where is the tyranny in that?

There may be a number of reasons for people to object to the quality of the provided tap water – the taste, presence of chlorine, colour, etc. Tap filters are common – and specific filters are available for removing fluoride, chlorine. colour, tastes, etc. Bottled water or water from different “natural” sources are also used by people who object to tap water for one reason or another. In some countries people (and especially tourists) never drink tap water – they use bottled water.

Whenever I check with anti-fluoride campaigners I find they already exert their freedom of choice by obtaining their drinking water from a separate source or using a fluoride removal system like an appropriate tap filter, distillation or reverse osmosis. You have to ask – if they have already exerted their freedom of choice, what the hell are they talking about with this argument? Perhaps the freedom to prevent the choice of those who voted for a safe and effective social health measure – CWF?

Fluoridation is medicine myth

This clause in Part 2 of the Act – Civil and political Rights – includes rights such as not being deprived of life, subjected to torture or cruel treatment and not being subjected to medical or scientific experimentation. This suggests he is again being rather extreme to see CWF as a form of forced medical treatment. Hell, it isn’t even a form of forced drinking of tap water given that no-one is denied alternatives.

“it is illogical to argue that fluoride is not a medical treatment but then introduce it to drinking water to combat tooth decay.”

Then what does he, and his anti-fluoride mates, think of chlorination of our drinking water supplies. This disinfection process is not a medical treatment but is clearly meant to prevent disease. According to O’Connor’s logic, it should be seen as a medical treatment and thus subject to the Bill of Rights!Incidentally, many opponents of CWF are also opposed to chlorination. But tend to be less public about this preferring to see CWF as the “low hanging fruit” and mobilisation against chlorination a future project once CWF has been defeated.

Incidentally, many opponents of CWF are also opposed to chlorination. But they tend to be less public about this preferring to see CWF as the “low hanging fruit” and mobilisation against chlorination a future project once CWF has been defeated.

O’Connor extends his logic:

“If it [CWF] is a medical treatment the Bill of Rights clearly prohibits its introduction to communal drinking water. If it is not a medical treatment to combat tooth decay, there is no logical reason to introduce it to communal drinking water. There is no middle ground.”

The fact that exactly the same logic can be applied to iodised salt or the disinfection of communal drinking water by chlorination surely shows the danger of bush lawyers taking it into their own hands to define and interpret the law.

Just imagine if a minority managed to prevent communal water disinfection by using the Bill of Rights, the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment, their perverted concept of “freedom of choice” and arbitrary definition of chlorination as a “medicine.” Doing this, and at the same time denigrating democratic decisions as the “tyranny of the majority” they would, in fact, be imposing their own tyranny of a minority. One that denied a safe and effective water treatment process prevent sickness and spread of diseases.

*Note: Mind you, O’Connor still manages to misrepresent the scientific aspects by saying:

“The key issue here, however, is not the effectiveness or otherwise of fluoride as a treatment for oral health. That is an unresolvable argument between competing proponents and opponents which lay people are not equipped or even obliged to decide.”

Sure – the debate may not be resolvable, given that is driven by ideological factors. But the science is resolvable. The effectiveness or otherwise of CWF is an objective fact which can be determined by proper investigation of reality. Yes, that requires scientific and health experts and not lay people.

The wise lay person recognises her limitations in areas outside her expertise and takes the advice of the expert. We listen to the advice of mechanics about our cars, builders about house construction, engineers about road construction, oncologists about cancer treatment, etc. We should do the same with the science related to CWF.

104 responses to “Attempting a tyranny of the minority on fluoridation”

Experts quite often get it wrong. Leaky building. And in Christchurch houses are being consented which may be useless in 50 years because of rising sea levels. Scientific articles are being retracted at several per day.

Our voting system changed to MMP to remove some tyranny of the majority. And it helps some people who don’t even know they are a minority because more caring politicians get elected.

People susceptible to fluoride damage may be those who don’t realise: low on iodide or perhaps on vitamin D.

And for some the talk that you are doing about filters, which also require mineral replacement in the resulting water, driving to non-F taps, and buying bottled water is a big money earner for some corporates.

Yes, experts do sometimes get it wrong, Brian. But what is your alternative – your local priest or witch doctor?

The sensible person recognises this possibility – and sometimes they take the precaution of getting second opinions for that very reason. But again, they are not going to benefit from getting this second opinion from the local priest or witch doctor.

And guess who are the corporates making big money out of tap filters, mineral replacements, etc.? Yes, the “natural”/alternative health industry who are feeding you the misinformation in the first place. Simply fearmongering for financial gain.

The market tries to hide the hazards where it can. And minimise the perception of the risks.

For anyone who was able to watch the Firstlight program at 6:30 children need to learn from mistakes. So long as the hazards are not too great.

What are the hazards of airbus flight? CO2 may not be much greater than a private car with one occupant. Crashes are not frequent.

What are hazards of using methylphenidate (I referred to above) to adjust a child to an environment where they must keep quiet and not use their voice much when they are struggling? It was when I was talking to someone about that they said it had just been discussed by Joshua White on the program I have referred to. That got me listening.

A growing number of people think it is worth the risk of methylphenidate damage to perpetuate the education system we have. And rather than fix up that main stream system our government promotes charter schools for the failures and pays up to 3 times amount per child and says how great the charter schools are.

Methylphenidate may help some people but please look at other forms of brain development as Joshua said. Please don’t let sales of the product be the driver of its use when better ways of human development should be explored.

If fluoridation stopped our most populous city producing any more All Black captains, is that likenable to the airbus crash you think is a mangeable risk?

Ken it’s just a matter of getting used to language. Medicating children instead of working with their needs is described as Satan. How do you describe it? Same could be with cigarette sales. The SDA gave help with smoking cessation many years ago. (Quit Now). I see now our government are catching on and increasing cost of cigarettes.

I think we need to accept communication from all beliefs. Google Scholar has 766 entries when searching for “Sydney Adventist Hospital.”

Over the world the many SDA hospitals fulfil needs. The Auckland Adventist Hospital, 75 beds, and emergency centre, & St John Ambulance satellite station in St Heliers Bay was sold in 1999 when more private beds started up in the area.

Typical response from the pro lobby by making stupid remarks rather than focus on the guts of the issue. (The market tries to hide the hazards where it can. And minimise the perception of the risks.)
That is applicable to those who market CWF and given their ability to access the deep pockets of the taxpayer they are granted a huge advantage when it come to a contest. The winner is invariably those with the greatest resources not, as history indicates, those who are ultimately proven to be right.

Trev, so you disagree with Tom’s arguments. I think, and others have commented, that Tom actually is presenting a very good argument -actually the best argument that the anti-fluoride people have. I have pointed out where I think he is wrong and asked him to discuss the issue here. here is thinking about it and I hope he does.

I think these values-based arguments a worth discussing as, in the end, the science-based arguments used by anti-fluoride campaigners are easily debunked and are only proxies for the underlying values issues.

It would be more honest to discuss these underlying issues – even if there is no resolvable end point as there is in science. But because people make decisions based on their values this discussion gets to the heart of the matter.

Apart from that, Trev, I note again your sensitivity on the issue of the financing of anti-fluoride legal activity by the lobby group for a big business – the NZ Health Trust. Perhaps your nose is still out of joint as they did not follow through with sufficient finance for your own silly little legal adventure on fluoridation? 🙂

To smokers of the 1990s the SDA “Quit Now” program may have looked like a minority being tyrannical. Government has taking up the action and banned smoking in many places.

Stuartg thinks SDA look tyrannical now by labelling as Satan the increasing use of Ritalin or other methylphenidate-containing drugs to conform children to an impoverished education system. Now our government is funding a few alternative schools at up to 3 times the amount per child and claiming great success.

Firstlight TV is run by SDA volunteers.

Can’t you see Ken that by trying to isolate these people as “extreme religious” you are being just as polarising as they are? SDA neurosurgeon Ben Carson got a long way on his presidential ticket. I am a bit suspicious about his trying to latch on to public Muslim fear, but he is not the only one doing so. Trump loving Jews and Christians.

Quite a lot of SDA people are vegetarian, which is proven to provide protein with less burden on the planet I believe. Do you have to eschew their whole package, Ken? Even though you are on the anti-global warming ticket?

No Ken, I associate with all peoples, Muslims and Catholics. Well that may give the impression that SDA (Seventh Day Adventist) people don’t. Of course they do but have caution about their religions and the march for world control they perceive. SDA people “respect the Sabbath” from sundown Friday to Saturday. It’s a family day and they have it in common with what you hear from high profile businessperson Trump’s daughter Ivanka who does that as a Jew.

In a way I see some of Trump’s and Carson’s drives as trying to hold on to a culture which may be in decline. Maori parallel?

Brian, I am effectively a vegetarian. But I have arrived at that position through logical inference – not primitive god worshipping. The Seventh Dat Adventists and First Light promote an anti-science package – that is why I call them extreme.

You have learned nothing from your waffling comments here if you can think I am on anyone’s “ticket.” I seem to manage to upset almost everyone equally. 🙂

We seem a bit isolated from moves to world control here. We may have our little say up to 22 July about TPPA and the advance of corporatocracy. But we do not really feel the way people of the origins of our heritage do as it impacts on Christians and others in Syria. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22270455

Ken I guess there has been some Christian heritage building the society which has allowed you to attain freedom of thought.

Ken: “The Seventh Dat Adventists and First Light promote an anti-science package – that is why I call them extreme.”

“Brand teaches that his biblical views help him propose questions for research. On page 8 of his book, Beginnings, he states,

In my approach, I retain the scientific method of observation and experimentation, but I also allow study of Scripture to open my eyes to things that I might otherwise overlook and to suggest new hypotheses to test. This approach is not just a theory; some of us have been using it for years with success.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has recognized Brand as a thought leader in matters of science and origins since the early 1970s. He has served on the SDA church’s science council from 1976 to 2003”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_R._Brand

Please stop attributing your own words and thoughts to me. You were the one who mentioned Satan – note that I put it in quotations for that very reason. I wasn’t aware of the meaning of your TLA of SDA, didn’t bother to look it up, so how could I have thoughts about it?.

The stream of different thoughts in your comments may have been cogent to you, but no-one else was able to follow more than a fraction of it.

If your beliefs in CWF, education, etc, derive from the SDA, then it’s no wonder that you do not understand the process of science. The beliefs that you espouse on various subjects have all of the attributes of religion.

Stuartg: “If your beliefs in CWF, education, etc, derive from the SDA, then it’s no wonder that you do not understand the process of science.”
SDA people are not the only ones to see beyond neo-Darwinism.

I have subscribed to Mae Wan Ho’s society for quite a few years till she died.

Then place the counter-example. Write what you mean to say. Explain why and how it is relevant.

Don’t assume that by saying two or three words we are able to follow the way your ideas fly, how they relate to the topic under discussion, etc.

Example: I still have no idea how methylphenidate relates to community water fluoridation – you brought up methylphenidate, vitamins and schools, and then tried to put words in the mouth of others who had not commented on the subject. If methylphenidate, vitamins and schools are actually relevant to CWF then it is your responsibility to let us know the way in which they are relevant – at least if you want them to be part of the discussion.

And make sure that your sentences make sense! Much of the time they are incomplete and we have to try to work out their meaning. Part of science is accuracy as a part of conveying the knowledge. Incomplete sentences markedly reduce the accuracy of the comment.

Stuartg: “If methylphenidate, vitamins and schools are actually relevant to CWF then it is your responsibility to let us know the way in which they are relevant – at least if you want them to be part of the discussion.”

To let you know the way discussion of over-prescription of methylphenidate is relevant to to the discussion I affirm again that is an example of where there is controversy about trusting the experts, in contrast to what Ken said about trusting the advice of mechanics about our cars, builders about house construction, engineers about road construction, oncologists about cancer treatment, etc.

Stuartg: “So, nothing to do with fluoridation at all.”
Now that you mention it Poulton spoke to Kim Hill about the COMT gene variation, in 25% of the population, making schizophrenia greater possibility if cannabis is used by the affected under-18-year-olds. And recent research reinforces a connection between “environment” COMT type and aggressive behaviour. http://www.dplabucy.com/uploads/2/5/9/0/25908118/tuvblad_et_al-2016-american_journal_of_medical_genetics_part_b__neuropsychiatric_genetics.pdf
Is some form of ADHD related? So methylphenidate may be being used.
And do you remember I posted Zhang’s study comments? It cautioned about COMT type and fluoride.
Ken, I think Zhang’s study should be reworked for that 25% tail. I don’t think it is fair to smudge them into the majority.

Poulton reported to Kim he would not give out data to other research institutions. He said they can do it themselves. He also said policy can come before knowledge.
If the Dunedin researchers have integrity they ought to run a quick correlation between the COMT data they have and Broadbent’s IQ work, using multiple regression or partial correlation. And include any nitrate/thyroid/IQ effect at the same time.

“If the Dunedin researchers have integrity they ought to run a quick correlation between the COMT data they have and Broadbent’s IQ work, using multiple regression or partial correlation. And include any nitrate/thyroid/IQ effect at the same time.”

Please explain why, in your (lonely) opinion, the Dunedin researchers lack integrity. They did not analyse data that was outside the remits of their research, unfunded, and so they probably didn’t even collect the data to analyse. Explain how that is lacking in integrity. Contrast with Mercola who ignores/neglects to consider/cherry picks funded and published research that contradicts his pseudo-science and would thus reduce his multi-million dollar sales income each year.

As I suggested, if you really want the results, you could do the research yourself. If you don’t have the ability to do the research, then maybe you could fund it yourself. I look forward to seeing the results in a peer reviewed journal.

The Dunedin multidisciplinary study has the COMT test results, obviously since Poulton was relating their importance. It would be very quick and easy to run a correlation. COMT subtypes potentiate several troubles. The fluoride/COMT path should be followed up. When something like this is pointed out it is only integrity to follow it up.

With Mercola promoting supplements, he would be probably getting people out of the low iodine stratum in which Lin Fa Fu pointed to a drop in IQ in, related to fluoride.

Understanding these matters could lead to more targeted methylphenidate prescribing.

If DHBs assist with dental costs, why not in targeted way with people suffering from avoidable COMT troubles?

Leaving the research alone means methylphenidate may continue to be worsening problems in people for whom it is not suited.

Parroting the pseudoscience that Mercola wants you to believe (so that he can get even more of your money)…

Switching topic (again), even further away from the original topic of fluoridation, and thus trying to sow doubt and confusion about the original topic when both the science and economics of fluoridation are clear…

Since you can’t tell us what methylphenidate has to do with fluoridation (and why you brought up the subject in the first place), please enlighten us to the connection between MRSA and fluoridation. After all, it was you who brought the topic up and so it’s you who thinks there is a connection.

Of course, if there is no connection and you are just trying to foist Mercola’s pseudoscience on us then we will get further obfuscation and topic changing…

Stuartg, when I wrote, “Do you think no proportion of this to be good advice and all charlatan?” I could instead have written, ““Do you think no proportion of this to be good advice and all of it to be charlatan?” However I reduced the amount of words necessary by making the word “charlatan” an attributive adjective qualifying the noun, “all.”

Do you want chocolate on your ice creams? No make all plain. “Plain” is an attributive adjective after the noun, “all.”

Stuartg: “Parroting the pseudoscience that Mercola wants you to believe”

Mercola is not the only source warning of antibiotic resistance. Here is another recent one but this one does not touch on the matter of using antibiotics as growth promoters on farms which Mercola puts up as a big concern. He believes we can help against antibiotic resistance if we do not buy products from farms which use antibiotics, especially families of them currently used to treat humans.
Do you not believe antibiotic resistance is the cause of so many deaths?

Ken keeps on mentioning the Mercola name, which seems to me an encouragement to voice Mercola’s concerns in order to straighten Ken’s ideas out.

Earlier in the discussion, you considered that methylphenidate was relevant to a discussion of fluoridation, but you declined to enlighten us how you considered them related. You attempted to change the topic instead.

You then brought up the subject of MRSA, apparently also considering it relevant to discussion of fluoridation. Even though asked, you have again declined to provide information on how you think that the two are related.

Your skills of obfuscation and topic changing, whilst also avoiding relevant comments about the topic under discussion, are as good as ever.

Now, are you going to illuminate us as to how methylphenidate and MRSA are relevant to a discussion on fluoridation, or do we accept them as unfathomable flight of ideas on your part?

Stuartg I suppose I could have said, “all charlatanic,” just as you would talk about the “New Zealandic cricket team,” or the “socceric ball,” and I don’t know what for, “love story,” or, “cricket bat.” Nouns are frequently used as adjectives.

Stuartg.
Wiki: “…(NaF), the lethal dose for most adult humans is estimated at 5 to 10 g (which is equivalent to 32 to 64 mg/kg elemental fluoride/kg body weight).[1][2][3] Ingestion of fluoride can produce gastrointestinal discomfort at doses at least 15 to 20 times lower (0.2–0.3 mg/kg or 100 to 150 mg for a 50 kg person) than lethal doses.”
Say an 8kg baby drinks 0.8l per day. If that is made from fluoridated water that could give a dose of 0.6 mg, or rounded off 0.1 mg per kg body weight.
With chronic administration what happens to development of the baby? What happens to neural development? I wonder if the Dunedin study may tell us if more bottle fed infants go on to being prescribed methylphenidate.

Richard, 1 litre of water now has about 0.8 mg in a fluoridated area.
(It used to be more which may need to be taken into account in the infancy of current rugby players).
If the infant gets 6 feeds per day and drinks a litre for simplicity that is 0.13mg per feed or 0.02 mg per kg body weight which is 10% of the dose rate for adult intestinal discomfort. What about infant?
” Serum Fluoride levels peak within 1 hour of ingestion and return to normal after approximately 3 to 5 hours.” Not sure about infants. http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Recognition+and+Management+of+Fluoride+Toxicity
So the next dose comes in before the first gets sent to bones and urine. I do not think there is an adequate safety margin which is likely why the ADA suggests non-fluoridated water for bottle feeding.
Infants over 6 months may also be given water to drink, so there may be some impact on breast-fed infants, too.

We all realise your task here, Brian, is to misinform, raise doubts and distort the science. Typical is your claim:

‘I do not think there is an adequate safety margin which is likely why the ADA suggests non-fluoridated water for bottle feeding.”

Of course, the ADA position has nothing to do wjhith what you think – and you misrepresent their position. Their suggestion about using non-fluoridated water is aimed at the peace of mind of irrationally concerned parents – not because of any inadequate safety margin.

The American Dental Association actually advises:

“Yes, it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula. If your baby is primarily fed infant formula, using fluoridated water might increase the chance for mild enamel fluorosis, but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to talk to their dentists about what’s best for their child.”

Where parents want to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis they:

“can use powdered or liquid concentrate formula mixed with water that either is fluoride-free or has low concentrations of fluoride.”

So, caught out again with misinformation and distortion. I guess this is typical for a disciple of Mercola.

“With chronic administration what happens to development of the baby? What happens to neural development?”

The answer is: nothing different from usual.

Hundreds of millions of people, including infants, have been drinking fluoridated water for seven decades now. That’s enough time and people for even extremely rare side effects of CWF to have shown up. None have.

That already answered question is another attempt to sow doubt and confusion.

” Serum Fluoride levels peak within 1 hour of ingestion and return to normal after approximately 3 to 5 hours.”

Unless I’m very much mistaken that would be referring to a single dose (ingestion) not to an accumulative daily intake. Yet you were pontificating over an imaginary dose equalling that accumulated over 24 hours.

Do you even know the difference?

I do not think there is an adequate safety margin which is likely why the ADA suggests non-fluoridated water for bottle feeding.

So what? You are not a toxicologist, your opinion is next to worthless, unless you have some concrete data and the expertise required to properly interpret it. You don’t have either.

Most intelligent people refrain from pontificating in areas in which they have no expertise.

Answer me honestly, Brian, are you ever going to desist from presenting your unwelcome, disruptive and half-baked idiocy in here? or are we stuck with you?

Ken asks: “And what about an apology for misrepresenting the ADA?”
I post a but more of what I put on Ken’s most recent thread reply to Tom.

“The American Dental Association also acknowledged that fluoride intake above optimal amounts can create a risk for enamel fluorosis in teeth during their development before eruption through the gums.

The ADA also noted that recent US research from the Center for Disease Control indicated a rise in the level of very mild or greater fluorosis in children and adolescents aged 16–19 years between 1988–94 and 1999–2004.

Based on that information, the ADA included in their interim guidance statement some simple precautionary advice for those parents, caregivers and health care professionals who may be concerned:

If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis …

The ADA indicated that more research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made on fluoride intake by bottle-fed infants.”

And Ken complains I said, “I do not think there is an adequate safety margin which is likely why the ADA suggests non-fluoridated water for bottle feeding.”

“suggests.” There is some reason why dental fluorosis is occurring. Some reason why the body cannot put down apatite consistently. That also can happen with strains on it such as antibiotics or illness. Whatever the mechanism of the cause if parents don’t like the possible result ADA suggests they may use non-f water. What I imply is that there is a stress on infant metabolism which ends up in ADA responding that way.

I had said it how ADA said it on your more recent thread, Ken. Readers should be able to see I am trying to go in a bit deeper now, and look for a possible stress cause of uneven laying down of apatite; the deeper underlying reason which results in the cosmetic argument.

Stuartg: “I suppose I could have said, “all charlatanic,” just as you would talk about the “New Zealandic cricket team,” or the “socceric ball,””

You may use those neologisms, but no-one else would. They are plain wrong.”

No I don’t use them. I might talk about the Icelandic people. But not the New Zealandic people. I say the English people, but in the case of New Zealand people I use the noun “New Zealand” as an adjective, as I could referring to a charlatan doctor.
“please give me list of your doctors, that is all charlatan ones, so I can see if any are missed on retraction watch.”

Ken: “Biran, do you honestly think that fluoride is not a normal and natural component of bioapatites?

If so, could you advise of any research showing bioapatites that do not include F?”

It is a natural component but should not be pumped in too fast. It disables ameloblasts at some concentration,and some stage of their development. Ameloblasts form the tooth enamel so if they are disabled the tooth will probably be more porous. Once decay starts it may progress faster there. I am not sure how DMFT or DMFS copes with that.

“Dental fluorosis (DF) is an undesirable developmental defect of tooth enamel attributed to greater-than-optimal systemic fluoride exposure during critical periods of amelogenesis. DF is characterized by increased porosity (subsurface hypomineralization) with a loss of enamel translucency and increased opacity”

“It is a natural component but should not be pumped in too fast. It disables ameloblasts at some concentration,and some stage of their development. Ameloblasts form the tooth enamel so if they are disabled the tooth will probably be more porous. Once decay starts it may progress faster there. I am not sure how DMFT or DMFS copes with that.”

Let’s deconstruct that paragraph:

“It (fluoride) is a natural component (of apatites)” It seems to have taken you rather a long time to acknowledge that fact!

“but should not be pumped in too fast.” How is it “pumped”? How fast is “too fast”? [Citations needed]

“it disables ameloblasts at some concentration” What concentration is that? [Citation needed] (NB: disable – to put out of action. You chose the word, so you need to tell us the concentration that completely stops ameloblasts from working). We know that ameloblasts are not disabled at CWF concentrations because teeth develop normally with CWF (decades of use in millions of people have proven that).

“…and some stage of their development.” Which stage of ameloblast development is that? [Citation needed] Again, decades of use in millions of people have not shown CWF to disable ameloblasts at any stage of their development.

“if they are disabled the tooth will probably be more porous.” Since ameloblasts have not been shown to be disabled by CWF (decades of use and millions of people…) there is no need for you to make a guess about what “probably” happens. We know it doesn’t.

“I am not sure how DMFT or DMFS copes with that.” Ken has repeatedly shown improvement of these figures with CWF, with full citations, but because the science completely contradicts the anti-fluoridationist position, you are “not sure”. That single statement tells us you are entirely anti-fluoride and ignoring the science of fluoridation.

Ken “fluorosis” is the name given to when areas of tooth enamel become opaque. It may be caused by chicken pox, amoxicillin, fluoride, &c.

As for fluoride it has “A narrow therapeutic/toxicity window,” and, “..that an individual’s genetic background plays in modulating fluoride’s actions is becoming more evident,” so if it is to be increased in the water supply I believe allowances need to be made for genetic types who do not know they are susceptible, for temperature, when people are drinking more, and for infants who drink more in comparison to their body weight as well as being at a stage when amelogenin proesses are important, not just for tooth enamel development. As for genetic types I pointed a while back to a COMT variant as a possible sufferer.

“Fluoride in various chemical forms, doses, and exposures has physicochemical and biologic effects on cells and tissues. A narrow therapeutic/toxicity window and biphasic actions further complicate our understanding of fluoride’s effects. Fluorides mediate their actions through MAPK signaling pathways, leading to changes in gene expression, cell stress, and even cell death. Fluorides can lead to a diverse collection of responses affecting biomineralization. The role that an individual’s genetic background plays in modulating fluoride’s actions is becoming more evident and will allow for the investigation of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions capable of modifying the function(s) of fluoride-responsive genetic variants in an animal model. This in turn will provide a better understanding of the effects of fluoride on human bone, bone cells, and tooth enamel development. Future studies will likely focus on identifying and characterizing fluoride-responsive genetic variations (e.g., polymorphisms), and on identifying those at-risk human populations who are susceptible to the unwanted or potentially adverse effects of fluoride action, and, finally, on elucidation of the fundamental mechanisms by which fluoride affects biomineralization.”

Stuartg: ““It (fluoride) is a natural component (of apatites)” It seems to have taken you rather a long time to acknowledge that fact!”

It’s not a matter of acknowledging it.

If you look back you will find out I gave DB Ritchie’s talk about fluoride making a tougher tooth surface but very little is needed since the larger proteolytic organisms in mature tooth pellicle concentrate salivary fluoride and magnesium and calcium compounds on the tooth surface.

I pointed out how living organisms can concentrate trace elements: iodine at a low concentration in sea water can become very concentrated in sea weeds, so much so that people in search of iodine used to burn seaweed and catch the iodine given off by sublimating it.

You are also contradicting yourself:
“I gave DB Ritchie’s talk about fluoride making a tougher tooth surface.” versus “the tooth will probably be more porous.” Fluoride makes the tooth surface tougher, or it makes it weaker – you’ve said both. Obviously you rely on your faith/belief rather than following the science.

I take it from your lack of answer that neither methylphenidate nor MRSA are relevant to CWF, even though you brought them up as irrelevant diversions. I suspect we can expect more irrelevant diversions from you in the future, even the same ones.

Speaking of which – “I pointed out how living organisms can concentrate trace elements: iodine at a low concentration in sea water can become very concentrated in sea weeds.” Now tell us exactly how sea weeds concentrating iodine from sea water is relevant to CWF in humans. Different organism, different element. You think it’s relevant – now tell us how.

Oh, and how are you going with the citations to support all those guesses you made? I suspect that we won’t get any of them, because even five minutes on Google will give peer reviewed citations that show those guesses are wrong.

Ken have good studies been done?
Need to reject studies which say so many mg came from toothpaste, so as to reduce the apparent effect of CWF. Needs to be plasma levels taken every few hours during a few days or week, non-fluoridated toothpaste being used for that time. Which is problematic because of rebound. Toothpaste dose may go to the bones and urine in a few hours and leave the child’s plasma at lower level for a while. But with water the dose keeps on coming, giving the ameloblasts less recovery-respite. Should be done away from the sea where swimming will increase levels in some individuals, and seawater also provides other trace elements/minerals and being near the sea may be associated with eating more sea food/iodine. masking the effect. Dietary survey should be taken.

What illnesses/drugs has the child had? That may show up more for permanent teeth since the baby teeth are pretty much on the way before birth aren’t they? That could be an important indicator as to CWF vs toothpaste also, couldn’t it?

Brian, you are avoiding things again. It’s a simple question – and yes there is data out there enabling you to compare fluoridated areas with non-fluoridated areas.

You are not being asked about toothpasdte, consumption of see water or bottle feeding. Just a simple comparison of the prevalence of dental fluorosis in fluoridated and equivalent non-fluoridated areas. I repeat:

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

This is not hard and your burbling is simply an attempt to avoid facing up to the facts.

So Brian, you know all about studies which are not directly relevant to NZs situation, high concentration effects in cell studies.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the clear data which would enable you to answer this simple question.

Of course you are aware of the data â you are just refusing to acknowledge the studies you can use to answer these questions. But simple studies like the NZ Oral Survey to those mention in the Cochrane Review are beyond you.

If you refuse to quantify the problem you claim to be concerned about you have absolutely no honesty, let alone credibility.

I had taken a took a look at Cochrane which said: “Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation.”
However they did say: “With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants).”

Summarising: “There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.”

Looking into my notion about first teeth and bottle feeding: “Regardless of fluoride and feeding histories, no primary dentition showed fluorosis. Among mixed dentitions, 35% showed questionable to mild fluorosis. Ranking of feeding patterns indicated the lowest mean fluorosis index (0.08) for children breast-fed for 3 months or more; those breast-fed for less than 3 months were similar to those bottle-fed for less than 12 months (0.14, 0.16), and the highest index was for those bottle-fed more than 12 months (0.27).”http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/260511

This about primary teeth does not talk about bottle feeding just dose. But it agrees with timing. The teeth affected are the ones which tend to develop more after birth: “Results: Fluorosis prevalence was 12.1%, occurring primarily on the second primary molars. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and logistic regression were used to assess the importance of different time periods’ fluoride intake. In bivariate analyses, fluoride intake during each time interval was individually significantly related to fluorosis occurrence. For multivariate analyses, the period from 6 to 9 months was most important individually (P = 0.0001), and no other period was jointly statistically significant.”http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0528.2002.00053.x/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

This has nothing to do with bottle or breast feeding. It has nothing to do with the selection criteria the Cochrane study used for investigating the efficacy of CWF (completely separate from their fluorosis review).I repeat the question:

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

Ken wrote: ” It has nothing to do with the selection criteria the Cochrane study used for investigating the efficacy of CWF (completely separate from their fluorosis review)”
I had reversed the order of the first and last sentences in the paragraph, to give emphasis. It is selection about fluorosis studies.
I quote the Cochrane paragraph with the sentences now in their proper order:
“With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation.”

Brian, your pretended ignorance (claiming you do not know what the contribution of CWF is to dental fluorosis) puts you in a rather stupid position. Because you are campaigning against CWF and using the contribution to dental fluorosis as your current main argument.

It is simple enough – compare the levels for fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in the NZ Oral Health Survey, or compare the levels for the Cochrane defined “fluoridated” areas (at 0.7 ppm) and the Cochrane defined “non-fluoridated” areas (0.4 ppm).

You are hiding behind studies which may suffer bias, be completely irrelevant to the real world situation of CWF (and maybe more relevant to the Chinese and Indian studies). That is not evidence. Real world statistics are evidence.

I repeat:

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

Since soundhill won’t provide an answer that contradicts his faith/belief, and I didn’t know myself, I looked at the first item a Google search turned up. I suspected any lurkers on your blog may also be interested. I didn’t bother looking at anything other than the first item.

In this pdf it mentions the Cochrane report of 2004, which reports on the prevalence of fluorosis of aesthetic concern:
Cork (fluoridated) 4%
Knowsley and five other European cities (non-fluoridated) 1%
Summaries of other studies reported in the pdf show similar percentages.

Overall this pdf shows an increase in fluorosis of aesthetic concern in areas with CWF of about two or three children out of every hundred. Whether that is a significant increase or not depends on many factors, including the funding of both CWF and children’s dental treatment by taxpayers. Since soundhill thinks in black and white, no greys involved, he will be unable to appreciate those many factors and insist that any increase of fluorosis at all by CWF is significant.

The reason soundhill won’t answer is that, unlike scientists, he is unable to acknowledge any errors in his thinking or reasoning. He just doesn’t understand that errors and error correction is one of the most important things in science.

I am trying to get Brian to consider if there is any significant problem for him to attempt his theorising about. Ant-fluoridationists continue to avoid the question fo what contribution, if any, CWF makes to dental fluorosis and end up claiming that all the dental fluorosis of any sort is caused by CWF.

So that is why I am pointing Brian to the actual data, which is summarised in the following graphs.

Ken, as I said fluoridation/fluoride is only one cause of fluorosis. What is in the Cochrane figures is also coming from chicken pox, amoxicillin &c, maybe shortage of vitamin C. All those aspects need to be looked at. Prescribing amoxicillin may be unavoidable. Excess fluoride isn’t. What you are claiming is that because many children have been hurt we need not bother about the others.

In Bristol fluoride level of water is not adjusted, it is 0.1 to 0.3 ppm. So bottle fed babies will be getting say 0.08 to 0.24 mg per day, 20 times as much. And they have lower IQ in the ALSPAC longitudinal study. Must all the blame be put on mothers who could not breast feed or may some be put on the water?

“What you are claiming is that because many children have been hurt we need not bother about the others.”

I challenge you to produce a single quote to that effect.

But it is also dishonest to continue to avoid the question I put to you. The data stares you in the face but you are afraid to make a simple arithmetic based statement on it. I don’t for one minute think the problem is that you are arithmetically challenged.

You claim that fluoridation is just one cause of dental fluorosis. True – but what is its approximate contribution? After all, if you campaign against CWF you must think it is a major cause.

I repeat:

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

Come on, you have campaigned against CWF specifically on the basis of dental fluorosis. What about admitting the magnitude of this contribution you have been campaigning on?

Now could you please redo your chart distinguishing between demarcated fluorosis, which Broadbent says can follow decay, and diffuse fluorosis, which can follow long term exposure. In an Auckland study, ” The proportion of children with diffuse opacities was highest among those who had lived continuously in fluoridated areas (25%) and lowest among the children living continuously in non-fluoridated areas (11%) (adjusted OR=4.17;
95% CI 1.94, 8.94)”

You are (again) avoiding the question (childishly, I might add) and avoiding the simple responsibility to apologise (or supply a credible quote) for asserting I claimed we should not bother about children being hurt.

I repeat my question again:

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

Ken but you are rolling two opposite effects into one.
About Broadbent, if you looked at my ref: “children who had decay in their upper front teeth at age 5 were found to be more likely to have a demarcated opacity in the following teeth at age 9 (adjusted OR=2.19, 95% 1.12-4.29). The authors suggested in their conclusion that while living in a fluoridated area increases the risk of diffuse opacities, CWF may indirectly help to prevent demarcated opacities as these were found to be associated
with previous dental decay”

So fluoridation => more diffuse fluorosis
And fluoridation => less demarcated fluorosis

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

Ken it will take a while for me to find the answer to that.
It seems the demarcated fluorosis may be worse in non-fluoridated areas. So it seems demarcated fluorosis cannot be attributed to fluoridation. Quite the contrary, it is reduced by it. If it is lumped together with diffuse fluorosis, which can be attributed to fluoridation, in varying amounts as my ref showed, then the total fluorosis will not show much relation to fluoridation.

Of course it isn’t unavoidable. That’s why (most) water suppliers remove excess fluoride from water supplies.

I have to note any that “excess” fluoride that has to be removed from water supplies is “naturally occurring” fluoride at well over the levels required for CWF. The water suppliers don’t remove it all, they tend to remove it to the levels found in CWF…

Stuartg, you like things to be clear. Sometimes white marks on the teeth look like what fluoride can do to teeth. They also get the name fluorosis.
I would call those marks pseudofluorosis if that name weren’t already allotted to when people who have not got fluorosis think they have as a psychological case.

Things which damage the ameloblasts (which form tooth enamel) before or at the time when teeth are developing cause white opaque marks on the teeth. As Broadbent showed, even trauma to a baby tooth can cause ameloblasts to die, affecting the developing permanent tooth.

I can go back through my searches and find the refs if you really need.

Going back over the comments on “Attempting a tyranny…”, I counted ten questions asked of you before I gave up counting. Many others have been asked since.

You haven’t answered even one of them.

You’ve asked many questions of your own, mainly about cherry picked papers from anti-fluoridationist sites. These questions have already been answered many times, but because the answers don’t fit with your faith/belief you have ignored them many times. You continue to ask the questions, apparently with the belief that the answers will change if they are asked often enough.

Now it’s time for you to answer questions from others.

Ken has asked you:

“Given that dental fluorosis also occurs in non-fluoridated areas – what percentage of dental fluorosis (and what grade is it) can be attributed to CWF? And is this value statistically significant?”

He has given you citations for the answer, I have given you another. Yet you still say: “Ken it will take a while for me to find the answer to that.”

Why don’t you answer the question? You’ve been given the source for the answer, just read it and answer. If you don’t, then you are demonstrating that your beliefs are faith driven, from the anti-fluoridationist sites, and that you are completely ignoring the science around the subject.

Do you have the citations for your multiple guesses yet? Maybe we just have to accept that those guesses were purely from your imagination, with no basis in reality?

Are you going to tell us why you think methylphenidate, MRSA and iodine in seaweed are related to CWF? Or is any relationship between them merely a product of your imagination as well?

I’ll be watching teh Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study on TV1 “Why am I” 9:35pm tonight. I may be awake to science being bent to policy, That is giving another flavour to the word “before.” “policy being more important and the “science” being bent to support the policy.

“Here’s another conundrum for you.” First you’ll have to explain why anyone would think that it’s a conundrum. (Noun: a confusing and difficult problem or question; a question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.)

“I may be awake to science being bent to policy,” – more probably you’ll be shutting your mind off to the science when it contradicts your beliefs.

“That is giving another flavour to the word “before.”” Before what? What is the “That” “giving another flavour”? We don’t follow your flight of ideas.

““policy being more important and the “science” being bent to support the policy.” That looks like an entire sentence, especially since it follows a full stop/period. Unfortunately it’s incomplete and doesn’t make sense.

Please re-read your writing and make sure it is intelligible before you upload it.

““Knowledge always comes before policy,” could mean
1. the government always looks into the science of the situation before forming policy.
2. the government may ignore the science if it doesn’t fit policy.

It seems the science said, for those Dunedin people born in 1972, that aggression is more or less equally divided gender-wise. Even the scientific societies didn’t want to give that publicity. Where will we go with female aggression, against children especially?

Now there is government pressure on women to go to work when their children are so young. To acknowledge women’s violence may mean adjusting that pressure. Or what do you think?

Stuartg: “Why don’t you answer the question? You’ve been given the source for the answer, just read it and answer. ”
To answer the question from Ken’s data would give a misleading picture.

I assume Ken’s argument goes like: “There is so little difference between fluorosis in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas that fluoridation cannot be a significant problem.”

However the white opaque lesions on teeth that look like fluorosis, and are often consequently noted as fluorosis, are only roughly 50% the hypomineralisation caused by the destruction of ameloblasts by fluoride.

So what I think Ken is trying to get us to believe is not right.
When Ken said, “No one is asking you to differentiate different forms, Brian”
what was his real intention?

Below I cite a paper which distinguishes between the white opacities on teeth caused by excess fluoride and ones not caused by excess fluoride. For one thing the ones caused by fluoride tend to be symmetrical in the mouth. And I have “differentiated” before diffuse vs demarcated hypomineralisation.

If using tooth fluorosis as a guide to excess fluoride and therefore someting to compare IQ against, as Broadbent has done in a letter to AJPH, he should not be including the opacities unlikely to be caused by fluoride.

Brian, your comment reveals that all along you realised the significance of my question, refused to accept the obvious conclusions from an honest answer to it, and set about attempting to divert the discussion with childish pretensions about details.

It doesn’t matter about the real or supposed details of what is diagnosed as “dental fluorosis” in the studies and data I referred to. The comparison was between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. You could argue black and blue that the reason there is very little difference is that the diagnosed “fluorosis” is not actually fluorosis. But that doesn’t change the fact that the diagnosed “fluorosis” (whatever it or parts of it are) do not differ quantitatively by much between the fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

That should be the rational and evidence-based conclusion from the data.

Instead you and your mates in Cornett’s crowd disseminate propaganda claiming that fluoridation has caused a dental fluorosis prevalence of 45%!

Ken: “Instead you and your mates in Cornett’s crowd disseminate propaganda claiming that fluoridation has caused a dental fluorosis prevalence of 45%! ”

Are they claiming cause or only saying that is the prevalence, and people are presuming it is cause?

Same as you are not warning people that much tooth white opaque hypomineralisation is not a result of fluoride but letting them think it is.

Same as I said before: your quote from ADA: ” but enamel fluorosis does not affect the health of your child or the health of your child’s teeth.” That gives the perception of no trouble, and is dishonest not to refer to whether what causes fluorotic hypomineralisation, by destroying the ameloblasts, has not been investigated, that THEY know of, as to action on other organs of the body.

Ken: “Brian, your comment reveals that all along you realised the significance of my question, refused to accept the obvious conclusions from an honest answer to it, and set about attempting to divert the discussion with childish pretensions about details.”

Ken, it does not seem to me to be just a detail what I am talking about.

I think you don’t want me to be discussing Broadbent’s fault in using all the white spots on teeth to try to show fluoridation does not affect IQ. So you label me childish.

Broadbent should only be using the white spots which fluoride has caused to get results about fluoridation.

Ken you are trying to divert the discussion away from Broadbent/IQ. That was obvious when you wrote: “Come on, you have campaigned against CWF specifically on the basis of dental fluorosis.”

You are trying to create the impression my gripe is with fluorosis. Then shoot down that straw man. Even then you are not shooting it down effectively because it takes very poor vision to see all the white spots on teeth as cause by fluoride.

My gripe is not with “fluorosis” – white opacities on teeth but that those of them caused by fluoride are being produced by killing the ameloblasts with the implication that other stuff may be being affected.

The argument that for example IQ is not being affected, based on the argument that it is not being affected because children with more white lesions on teeth do not show reduced IQ, is circular.

Circular argument: Teeth opacities do not significantly correlate with reduced IQ.
Therefore since opacities are caused by fluoride it must not be lowering IQ.
Therefore if fluoride is not lowering IQ the opacities must not indicate anything much wrong.